As a person who's been at school, I agree with Peter. Introspecting about myself, I cant deny that school did a lot to dampen my desire to learn. Left to my own devices I read constantly but I specifically hated reading when it had to do with school work becauee shcool was a source of pressure to perform according to arbitrary standards. Plus I either forgot or dont even use most of what i learned in school so to be frank most of it was a waste of my time. Everything I needed to know (with the exeptions is basics like math and English) I either learned for the first time or relearned at university or at work.
Thank you for this presentation. I appreciated, there were very good ideas, especially at the beginning, on the other hand as one sinks in the ideology opposed to that which you fight rightly. I think your enthusiasm left out a lot of aspects. For example, you have not taken into account the contributions of the memetics developed by Susan Blackmore or the nuances brought by Steven Pionker on the falsely idyllic life of hunter-gatherers. Your intervention also allows us to ask ourselves new questions and encourages us to find ideas in line with childhood reality. But difficulties remain: If we put several children on a computer why is it always the same ones who do everything? One learns more than the other, like when you copy instead of doing. We don't learn anything. On the contrary, if everyone has a computer, everyone learns better, while being able to help each other of course. Because it is by being active that we learn best. It's like learning the rules of a game, it's very difficult to understand the rules if you don't start playing as Karl Popper remarked. There are other points that I would have liked to discuss, but that would take too long. Thanks again for sharing these ideas.
I've read Steven pinker's critiques on how hunter gatherers are usually described and its pretty clear that he conflates very different groups. Immediate return hunter gatherers are not the same as delayed return foragers and neither of those groups are the same as naturalists or agriculturalists yet he conflates them all and he also obscures relevant context (particularly when it comes to discussions of violence). All these groups have very different cultural practices but its not even a little not controversial within the field of anthropology to say that the former group are egalitarian including in the ways that they treat children. As a side note: Peter mentioned a few studies in his book which show that kids learn better when they share because they are more likely to help each other. Of course having too many kids per computer wont help but at least 2 per computer would probably be better than having one to themselves.
As a person who's been at school, I agree with Peter. Introspecting about myself, I cant deny that school did a lot to dampen my desire to learn. Left to my own devices I read constantly but I specifically hated reading when it had to do with school work becauee shcool was a source of pressure to perform according to arbitrary standards. Plus I either forgot or dont even use most of what i learned in school so to be frank most of it was a waste of my time. Everything I needed to know (with the exeptions is basics like math and English) I either learned for the first time or relearned at university or at work.
Had so much fun listening to this live, great talk!
Thanks for this great talk, the ideas flow and all make sense. As a teacher both in and outside of formal 'schooling' this resonates and inspires.
Thank you for this presentation. I appreciated, there were very good ideas, especially at the beginning, on the other hand as one sinks in the ideology opposed to that which you fight rightly. I think your enthusiasm left out a lot of aspects. For example, you have not taken into account the contributions of the memetics developed by Susan Blackmore or the nuances brought by Steven Pionker on the falsely idyllic life of hunter-gatherers. Your intervention also allows us to ask ourselves new questions and encourages us to find ideas in line with childhood reality. But difficulties remain: If we put several children on a computer why is it always the same ones who do everything? One learns more than the other, like when you copy instead of doing. We don't learn anything. On the contrary, if everyone has a computer, everyone learns better, while being able to help each other of course. Because it is by being active that we learn best. It's like learning the rules of a game, it's very difficult to understand the rules if you don't start playing as Karl Popper remarked. There are other points that I would have liked to discuss, but that would take too long. Thanks again for sharing these ideas.
I've read Steven pinker's critiques on how hunter gatherers are usually described and its pretty clear that he conflates very different groups. Immediate return hunter gatherers are not the same as delayed return foragers and neither of those groups are the same as naturalists or agriculturalists yet he conflates them all and he also obscures relevant context (particularly when it comes to discussions of violence). All these groups have very different cultural practices but its not even a little not controversial within the field of anthropology to say that the former group are egalitarian including in the ways that they treat children.
As a side note: Peter mentioned a few studies in his book which show that kids learn better when they share because they are more likely to help each other. Of course having too many kids per computer wont help but at least 2 per computer would probably be better than having one to themselves.
@@mr.ambientsounds1291 Alright, thank you for that clarification.
@@Philosophie21 Cheers